CH1 Now online for all membership

[smac97]

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

Quote

I am not aware of any constraint against any Ward member asking the bishop 2 let them review handbook 1. That being the case, handbook 1 is accessible to pretty much everyone in the church.

That’s quite an assumption. 

Not really.  I've read Handbook 1.  Quite a few times.  There is nothing in it that is particularly noteworthy.  And our bishop has shown its contents to members of the ward who have asked about it.

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

If today demonstrated anything it’s that if church leadership wanted to share Handbook 1 with membership, it would be VERY easy. 

Yes, it would.  But that is something of a non sequitur as to the notion that Handbook 1 is "secret" simply because it's distribution is limited.  Again, there are several copies of it in literally every single unit of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

Just now, smac97 said:

Less than 1% has possession of CH1.  "Access" is, I think, a distinct matter.

If someone in our ward had a question about an issue addressed in Handbook 1, our bishop would let that person review the contents of the book.  I've seen him do this on a number of occasions.

It is absurd to suggest that a book that has multiple copies within literally every unit of the Church is "secret."

Thanks,

-Smac

If it's so accessible to anyone who wants to see it, why the pretense about limiting the access to 1% of the church population? Seems a foolish, unnecessary, and counterproductive game aimed at making certain people feel special by holding key to forbidden handbook knowledge.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

I think the handbook should have remained online officially (I'm sure it can be had at one of the archive websites). People ought to know how their church functions and what is recommended in certain situations. 

[smac97]

3 hours ago, blueglass said:

Today if you write personal views regarding sec132, salt lake City will intervene and ask you to take it down,

Malarky.  There is no such across-the-board prohibition about writing about D&C 132, let alone in the form of "intervention" from "Salt Lake City."

FAIR has mutliple articles which address this section.  So does BYU.  MormonInterpreter just published an article in September that discusses Section 132 at length.  Jeff Lindsay has written about this section as well.

3 hours ago, blueglass said:

so leadership feels that freedom of the press has limits

Everybody feels that way, including the U.S. Government.

But this isn't about freedom of the press.  At all.  The Church isn't infringing on that First Amendment right (and as a private actor, isn't bound by it anyway).

3 hours ago, blueglass said:

and considers members personal communications on the internet the same as setting up a press to destroy the church, and may declare the property a public nuisance and seek it's destruction.  

This is one of the dimmer statements I have read about the Church in a while.  And a rank falsehood, to boot.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If it's so accessible to anyone who wants to see it, why the pretense about limiting the access to 1% of the church population? Seems a foolish, unnecessary, and counterproductive game aimed at making certain people feel special by holding key to forbidden handbook knowledge.

I personally think it's about trying to keep members from armchair quarterbacking their bishops and stake presidents.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If it's so accessible to anyone who wants to see it, why the pretense about limiting the access to 1% of the church population?

It's not a "pretense" ("pretending or feigning; make-believe").  The Church has limited the distribution of the book to leaders who need ready access to it.  If an individual wants to know the Church's position on a topic, and if that topic is addressed in Handbook 1, I see nothing wrong in that member reviewing that topic in the book.  Which book, I again note, has multiple copies in literally every unit of the Church, but which is still being characterized as "secret."

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Seems a foolish, unnecessary, and counterproductive game aimed at making certain people feel special by holding key to forbidden handbook knowledge.

"Seems" being the operative word there.  For unrelentingly negative gainsayers, pretty much anything in the Church can be characterized in this way.  That's the pernicious thing about faultfinding: You'll always succeed at it.

Always.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I personally think it's about trying to keep members from armchair quarterbacking their bishops and stake presidents.

I agree.

Put another way, it's to keep the people from holding their leaders accountable. If the members don't know that the handbook instructs leaders to conduct interviews in a specific way, a member can't really complain or question the leader if they behave improperly. If the member doesn't know the process for their disciplinary process, they can't hold leaders accountable if they fail to follow the established patterns.

It's all about establishing and maintaining a power dynamic within the wards and stakes.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

It's not a "pretense" ("pretending or feigning; make-believe").  The Church has limited the distribution of the book to leaders who need ready access to it.  If an individual wants to know the Church's position on a topic, and if that topic is addressed in Handbook 1, I see nothing wrong in that member reviewing that topic in the book.  Which book, I again note, has multiple copies in literally every unit of the Church, but which is still being characterized as "secret."

"Seems" being the operative word there.  For unrelentingly negative gainsayers, pretty much anything in the Church can be characterized in this way.  That's the pernicious thing about faultfinding: You'll always succeed at it.

Always.

Thanks,

-Smac

Sadly, the average member won't know whether or not the church takes a position on a certain topic in the handbook because they don't have access to it. It's hard to ask a question if you don't know that there's something to ask.

It's attempting to maintain the power dynamic in favor of local leadership by keeping the membership ignorant

[rockpond]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Makes me more confident that the November policy change was put online prematurely if they can accidentally make public the whole handbook so easily.  (And if so, we will never know how the policy would have read or been finetuned, training received with it, etc. due to it being immediately leaked ).

Accidentally published?  Possible.  But it wouldn’t have been accidentally written into the handbook along with the reformatting of the table of contents, etc.  And they certainly could have still provided training.  Plus, if that had been the case (an accidental early publication) they could have explained that in the interview or FP letter.

The problem with the 2015 policy was not that it was leaked but that it was poorly written or that they changed their minds after observing member reaction. 

[hope_for_things]

26 minutes ago, rongo said:

Nah, I consider the CFR fulfilled. And you could quote from it, you know. It's available in lots of places (black market).

What about vasectomies read like a joke to you? As a bishop who had a vasectomy while he was a bishop, it wasn't a joke. It was something my wife and I wrestled with (she is on high doses of blood thinners for life, and cannot safely have a baby in any fashion. Nor can she have surgery because of the bleeding risk). The point is well-taken that this policy is not well-known at all.

What reads like a joke that FP approval is needed for reinstatement of apostates? Having apostatized, shouldn't the Church be careful about perfunctorily allowing readmission?

Elective transgender surgery permanently tampers with what the Church regards as "eternal identity and purpose." You may disagree with this doctrine, but it is the Church's doctrine, and it's a serious one. Does that read like a joke just because you disagree with it?

Can you at least try to describe what you find in the "overarching tone" that reads like a joke?

Thanks!

So, its a joke that the church even tries to have an opinion on a subject like how many kids a family should have.  As others pointed out on this thread, they say on one hand this decision is between a husband and wife.  Well of course it is.  So are financial, medical, educational, vocational and other decisions.  The church isn't an authority on these issues and shouldn't ever try to be.  Hence my suspicion that some well intentioned leader at some point felt like bishops should be involved in and consulting members on this subject.  

I refer you to some comments by Elder Ballard this week at BYU I believe, which I think apply to this manual overreach.  

http://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/11/15/mormon-apostle-ballard-sounds-off-on-lgbt-rights-marriage-bullying-suicide-and-more-in-byu-speech/

Quote

“I am a general authority but that doesn’t make me an authority in general,” he then quipped. “I worry that members expect too much from their leaders and teachers, expecting them to be experts [in areas and topics] well beyond their expertise. If you have a question that requires an expert, please take the time to find an expert to help you.”

The FP approval piece is a joke on multiple levels.  Its a joke that the 3 highest leaders must be consulted on any reinstatement decisions in a worldwide church of this size.  How about some delegation on this matter?  They delegated temple sealing power even though scripture explicitly restricts it.  There is no scriptural mandate on reinstating excommunicated members, why the need for FP approval in the first place is a joke. 

I already pointed out in my previous posts what a joke including apostasy and transgender surgery in with murder, rape and incest is.  

The eternal identity and purpose statement isn't scriptural, it isn't fully understood and its a completely new invention thanks to the court battles over SSM.  Its definitely not doctrine yet, although I am worried that some leaders may want to canonize the family proclamation which is extremely problematic.  However, saying that gender is eternal, does not make it eternally fixed, or mean that those born with certain body parts are necessarily the correct gender at birth.  So even within that problematic document, there is some room for interpretation on this issue.  

The overarching tone, is the tone of authority, and the specificity on so many issues that aren't clearly specific.  I feel like its big time overkill.  An example would be opening up a Lego set and instead of a simple picture based instruction manual that gives you the basic details of how to assemble the kit, you have a 200 page tome that goes through all kinds of things and that gives you the exact order you must complete each step.  On one hand its too much and its too confident in itself.  There are other problems with the church's lack of training for leaders, so if they want to fix the problems they need to do more than just reforming the whole manual/handbook process.  

 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think my point is understandable as well. 

Even if what he said is true, asking someone to take down an Internet posting is hardly the functional equivalent of interfering with someone’s freedom of the press or of destruction of a printing press. 

What he posted is absurd. At best it is overwrought hyperbole. 

As I understand it, for many, it hasn't been a request to have them take down what is on the internet, but a "do it or else Church discipline".  If using threat to get people to not publish is not interfering with freedom of the press then I don't know what is. 

Of course the reference to the printing press was for effect, Scott.  That hardly makes the whole of it gibberish.  It brings the point home. 

[stemelbow]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not really.  I've read Handbook 1.  Quite a few times.  There is nothing in it that is particularly noteworthy.  And our bishop has shown its contents to members of the ward who have asked about it.

 

This would bring me back to the point of the Church out phariseeing the Pharisees.  If there is nothing noteworthy in the whole book, what's the point of it?  Are we trying to create a letter of the law observance that has outdone any group of religionists in history? 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Are bishops required to let any who ask read it, or is it up to their discretion? 

I think some bishops would likely read the instructions as meaning that they should not share the handbook.  Others likely won’t recall what’s written in the beginning of the handbook or will interpret it as allowing them to share with certain conditions. 

[stemelbow]

33 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's hilarious that people are issuing CFR's about details of a handbook the church won't make available to the individual being CFR'd.

I wish I could just rep this post.  Ah well, quoting and saying will do. 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Sadly, the average member won't know whether or not the church takes a position on a certain topic in the handbook because they don't have access to it. It's hard to ask a question if you don't know that there's something to ask.

It's attempting to maintain the power dynamic in favor of local leadership by keeping the membership ignorant

I hope the inaccessibility and keeping people in ignorance isn't to maintain a certain mystique for leaders to make decisions and claim some sort of extra divine input when the leaders are just following the handbook.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I hope the inaccessibility and keeping people in ignorance isn't to maintain a certain mystique for leaders to make decisions and claim some sort of extra divine input when the leaders are just following the handbook.

it certainly seems to work against the notion of a church run on revelation, doesn't it?

[rongo]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

This would bring me back to the point of the Church out phariseeing the Pharisees.  If there is nothing noteworthy in the whole book, what's the point of it?  Are we trying to create a letter of the law observance that has outdone any group of religionists in history? 

There really is nothing earth-shattering in it. The Church insists so forcefully on limiting access to preserve legal control. If they don't contest every unauthorized publishing from it, then they run the risk of being able to protect other much more important proprietary things. It's the same reason why one must contest every encroachment on private property: if you don't, squatters can potentially win in court and you can lose property.

I think from a PR and practical standpoint, they should just make it available online and be done with it. There are no smoking guns or skeletons in the closet in there, and it would forever take the wind out of the sails from people complaining about access being restricted. I also don't see any issues for local leaders resulting from members newly-armed with policy ammo against them. It would be a net plus for everyone, with no loss to the Church or local leaders. 

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's not a "pretense" ("pretending or feigning; make-believe").  The Church has limited the distribution of the book to leaders who need ready access to it.  If an individual wants to know the Church's position on a topic, and if that topic is addressed in Handbook 1, I see nothing wrong in that member reviewing that topic in the book.  Which book, I again note, has multiple copies in literally every unit of the Church, but which is still being characterized as "secret."

"Seems" being the operative word there.  For unrelentingly negative gainsayers, pretty much anything in the Church can be characterized in this way.  That's the pernicious thing about faultfinding: You'll always succeed at it.

Always.

Thanks,

-Smac

If there is nothing wrong with any member reviewing the handbook why not make it accessible to all members.  Your logic here baffles me.  You say it isn’t secret and any member can read it at any time... so, why the restricted access to less than 1% of members. 

p.s.  If you ar going to classify every disagreement with you as “fault finding” it kind of defeats the point of discussion and dialogue. 

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

There really is nothing earth-shattering in it. The Church insists so forcefully on limiting access to preserve legal control. If they don't contest every unauthorized publishing from it, then they run the risk of being able to protect other much more important proprietary things. It's the same reason why one must contest every encroachment on private property: if you don't, squatters can potentially win in court and you can lose property.

I think from a PR and practical standpoint, they should just make it available online and be done with it. There are no smoking guns or skeletons in the closet in there, and it would forever take the wind out of the sails from people complaining about access being restricted. I also don't see any issues for local leaders resulting from members newly-armed with policy ammo against them. It would be a net plus for everyone, with no loss to the Church or local leaders. 

I don't get the legal control issue, you mention.  But I agree, I don't think there is anything earth-shattering in it.  It seems silly to me to restrict access to a book of rules and procedures. 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Sadly, the average member won't know whether or not the church takes a position on a certain topic in the handbook because they don't have access to it.

Baloney.  The average member can do research on his/her own.  And ask the bishop.  And if that topic is in the handbook and the member wants to read it, I see nothing wrong with that.  Our bishop has accommodated such requests several times.

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's hard to ask a question if you don't know that there's something to ask.

Right.  The Internet does not exist.  No lds.org.  No Google.  And average members are punished for asking their bishop a question about the Church's position on a given topic.

That's your world.  In the real world, however...

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's attempting to maintain the power dynamic in favor of local leadership by keeping the membership ignorant

Baloney.  If a member has a question about a topic, he or she can research the issue.  And/or ask the bishop.  And ask to read the handbook.  I've done so.  Several times.  It is, in the main, very bland.

The Church's positions on controversial topics are not restricted to Handbook 1.

Let's say a member has a question about vasectomies and others forms of surgical sterilization.  That's in Handbook 2, Section 21.4.  The same goes for topics like abortion, abuse/cruelty to family members, artificial insemination, birth control, chastity and fidelity, homosexual behavior and same-gender attractions, in vitro fertilization, occult affiliation, pornography, same-gender marriages, sex education, single parenthood, sperm donation, suicide, and surrogate motherhood.

Section 21.3 of Handbook 2 includes topics like autopsies, cremation, euthanasia, HIV/AIDS, hypnosis, "ethically or legally questionable" medical and health practices, organ/tissue donation, end-of-life decisions, self-awareness groups, stillborn children, and the Word of Wisdom.

These seem to be most of the sorts of topics that members might be interested in learning more about, including the Church's position.  And these are all in Handbook 2. 

There are a few topics addressed in Handbook 1 that may be of generalized interest, such as the Church's position on gambling, sealing policies, disciplinary policies, use of Church facilities, privacy of members' information, and so on.  But most of these deal with minutiae, and the Church's policies are usually available in multiple alternative resources as well.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Pete Ahlstrom]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

it certainly seems to work against the notion of a church run on revelation, doesn't it?

Of course it would never happen even though the door is open. These things only happen in those carnival type churches where the pastor uses trickery and confederates to fake healings, etc.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I don't get the legal control issue, you mention.  But I agree, I don't think there is anything earth-shattering in it.  It seems silly to me to restrict access to a book of rules and procedures. 

The Church's legal arm for its intellectual property is Intellectual Reserve. It was striking to me when any and all church materials (print, or electronic media) switched from being copyrighted CoJCoLDS to IR. The reason for this was to place all of these things under IR for purposes of protecting and prosecuting unauthorized use. So, when there is unauthorized use of any kind in any amount, they vigorously threaten legal action, even when it makes the Church look silly. They have to, or it can be argued that they have forfeited these rights. It might be a stretch, but stranger things have happened in the courts. 

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I hope the inaccessibility and keeping people in ignorance isn't to maintain a certain mystique for leaders to make decisions and claim some sort of extra divine input when the leaders are just following the handbook.

Good point, I think this is part of the reasoning.  

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If there is nothing wrong with any member reviewing the handbook why not make it accessible to all members.  

It's a judgment call, I think.  I think the Brethren are not idiots.  I also do not think they are conniving, sinister villains bent on keeping members "ignorant."

I assume the Brethren have their reasons for limiting the distribution of Handbook 1.  I give them the benefit of the doubt.  I do not reflexively attribute to them the worst possible motives.

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

p.s.  If you ar going to classify every disagreement with you as “fault finding” it kind of defeats the point of discussion and dialogue. 

I don't do this.  And the disagreement isn't with me.  I have nothing to do with the limited distribution of Handbook 1.

That said, I think the accusations and speculation being bandied about here are absurd.  There are plenty of interesting and substantive LDS-related topics to discuss.  Public accusations against the leaders of the Church of "secrecy" and keeping members "ignorant" about a handbook which is mostly bland administrative stuff are overwrought and uncivil (and unbecoming members of the Church).

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Baloney.  The average member can do research on his/her own.  And ask the bishop.  And if that topic is in the handbook and the member wants to read it, I see nothing wrong with that.  Our bishop has accommodated such requests several times.

Right.  The Internet does not exist.  No lds.org.  No Google.  And average members are punished for asking their bishop a question about the Church's position on a given topic.

That's your world.  In the real world, however...

Baloney.  If a member has a question about a topic, he or she can research the issue.  And/or ask the bishop.  And ask to read the handbook.  I've done so.  Several times.  It is, in the main, very bland.

The Church's positions on controversial topics are not restricted to Handbook 1.

Let's say a member has a question about vasectomies and others forms of surgical sterilization.  That's in Handbook 2, Section 21.4.  The same goes for topics like abortion, abuse/cruelty to family members, artificial insemination, birth control, chastity and fidelity, homosexual behavior and same-gender attractions, in vitro fertilization, occult affiliation, pornography, same-gender marriages, sex education, single parenthood, sperm donation, suicide, and surrogate motherhood.

Section 21.3 of Handbook 2 includes topics like autopsies, cremation, euthanasia, HIV/AIDS, hypnosis, "ethically or legally questionable" medical and health practices, organ/tissue donation, end-of-life decisions, self-awareness groups, stillborn children, and the Word of Wisdom.

These seem to be most of the sorts of topics that members might be interested in learning more about, including the Church's position.  And these are all in Handbook 2. 

There are a few topics addressed in Handbook 1 that may be of generalized interest, such as the Church's position on gambling, sealing policies, disciplinary policies, use of Church facilities, privacy of members' information, and so on.  But most of these deal with minutiae, and the Church's policies are usually available in multiple alternative resources as well.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think you've forgotten that the internet doesn't have a "truth filter". Also, the scriptures do not say, if any of you lack wisdom let him ask Google. Pretty sure I've heard those somewhere before.

Your argument is that the church limits handbook information to members because they can just google it and then ask their bishop. Baloney is right.

It's interesting seeing how you're tying yourself up in knots to avoid the obvious conclusion that it would just be simpler for the church to make the handbooks available to all. There really is no meaningful benefit to keep it "secret" unless it is their attempt to establish and maintain control of leadership